OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£560PassMark benchmark result:34392N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:5.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2049TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.6

Overall score

Score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 95% of models
Score components

90%

8.6

Technical score

10%

?

User score

★Better than 95% of processors
8.6

Technical score

Technical score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components

60%

8.9

Performance

18%

8.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated Graphics

★Better than 94% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £560

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core Ultra 9 285H

Technical score
Technical score
8.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components:

60%

8.9

Performance

18%

8.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.8

Integrated Graphics

8.6
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 91% of models
Score components:

60%

8.6

Overall score

40%

7.6

Price

8.3
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA2049
CPU socket
FCBGA2049
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA2049 CPU socket, which is older than that of 66.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
N. of physical cores
16
★ Better than 91% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 91.5% of processors and equal to 4% of processors.
CPU threads
16
CPU threads
16
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 71% of processors and equal to 14% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.4 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
5.4 GHz
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.4 GHz which is higher than that of 95% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.9 GHz & 10x 2.7 GHz
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.9 GHz & 10x 2.7 GHz
★ Better than 94% of models
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.9 GHz & 10x2.7 GHz which is higher than that of 93.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Semiconductor size
3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 96% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
★ Better than 96% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 96.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% of processors.
L3 cache
24 MB
L3 cache
24 MB
â–² Better than 82% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.8% of processors.
L2 cache
26 MB
L2 cache
26 MB
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 26 MB which is larger than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
L1 cache
2,457.6 KB
L1 cache
2,457.6 KB
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 2,457.6 KB which is larger than that of 97.9% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
DDR memory version
DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
★ Better than 94% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 93.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
8,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
8,400 MHz
★ Better than 98% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 98.4% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8400 MHz
★ Better than 99% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8400 MHz, which is higher than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
â–² Better than 62% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 61.9% of processors and equal to 21.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Graphics 140T
Integrated GPU model
Intel Arc Graphics 140T
â–² Better than 87% of models
This processor uses the Intel Arc Graphics 140T integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 87.2% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
8
Integrated GPU execution units
8
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 8 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 74% of processors and equal to 7.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode)
★ Better than 95% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 94.6% of processors and equal to 1.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 40.1% of processors and equal to that of 11.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Base power (PL1)
45 W
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 39.9% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 115 W which is higher than that of 71.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.3% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core Ultra 9 285H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.25x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    34,392
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (34,392 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    34,392 vs 10,572.5
  • 3.06x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    14,767
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (14,767 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    14,767 vs 4,829
  • 10 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    16
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 77.8% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,446
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,446 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,446 vs 2,500
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Arrow Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 25.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.4 GHz
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 77% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,603
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,603 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,603 vs 1,471
  • 10.4x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    26 MB
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (26 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    26 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 25.8% better value for money
    Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has better value for money than the average processor (8.26 vs 6.6).
    8.26 vs 6.56
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 3.25x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    34,392
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (34,392 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    34,392 vs 10,572.5
  • 3.06x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    14,767
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (14,767 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    14,767 vs 4,829
  • 10 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    16
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 77.8% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,446
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,446 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,446 vs 2,500
  • 25.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.4 GHz
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 77% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,603
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,603 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,603 vs 1,471
  • 8 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    16
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    6 x 2.9 GHz & 10 x 2.7 GHz
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.9 GHz & 10x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    6x2.9 GHz & 10x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 4 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    8
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    P-core 8, E-core 8
    8 vs 4
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Turbo Core
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Arrow Lake
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Arrow Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 10.4x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    26 MB
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (26 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    26 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 6x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    3 MB/core
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core cluster: 4 MB shared
    3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 75% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 3 nm
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 6.4x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    2,457.6 KB
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2457.6 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,457.6 KB vs 384 KB
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 3x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    24 MB
    â–² Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    24 MB vs 8 MB
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    28
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 2.86x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    8,400 MHz
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    8,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR5/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2.24x higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    102.4 GB/s
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (102.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    102.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5X-8400 MHz
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-8400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-8400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 2x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    128 GB
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel Arc Graphics 140T
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Arc Graphics 140T vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Arc Graphics 140T vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 10 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    110 °C
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 45.2% larger die size
    Die size
    257 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (257 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    257 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 10 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    110 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C
  • 2.24x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is more expensive than the average processor (£560 vs £250).
    £560 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 2.24x more expensive
    Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is more expensive than the average processor (£560 vs £250).
    £560 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, AVX-VNNI, AVX-IFMA, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 23.1% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    256.93
    Category Benchmark
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (256.9 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    256.93 vs 334.1
  • 45.2% larger die size
    Die size
    257 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (257 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    257 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    8
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • 91.7% higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    115 W
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    115 W vs 60 W
  • 10 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    110 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (110 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    110 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

X
xda-developers.com
10/02/2025
Summary of the review
Review: Intel's Core Ultra 9 285H is Arrow Lake's redemption arc
W
windowscentral.com
10/02/2025
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 285H review: Keeping up with AMD... Mostly
E
expertreviews.co.uk
14/02/2025
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 285H: Can Arrow Lake H deliver MacBook Pro-level performance?
T
t3.com
10/02/2025
Summary of the review
I tried Intel's new Ultra upgrade – it makes boring laptops feel like gaming PCs
H
hardwareluxx.de
10/02/2025
Summary of the review
Arrow Lake-H: Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Review
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
10/02/2025
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 285H in the MSI Prestige 16 AI Evo Review
(Translated)Show original
0
01net.com
28/03/2025
Summary of the review
Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Review: Our verdict on the processor
(Translated)Show original
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU Performance Comparison: Intel Ultra 9 285H vs AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core Ultra 9 285H

  • Significantly improved integrated GPU performance with the Intel Arc 140T, suitable for light gaming and creative tasks.
  • Strong overall performance in multitasking and high-load scenarios like video encoding and compiling code.
  • Better power efficiency compared to previous Meteor Lake chips, maintaining performance even when running on battery.
  • Operates at lower temperatures during everyday tasks with effective thermal management in most chassis designs.
  • Future-proof connectivity options including support for up to 192GB of DDR5 RAM and PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

What we don't like about Intel Core Ultra 9 285H

  • Underpowered NPU (13 TOPS) that fails to meet the 40 TOPS requirement for Microsoft Copilot+ PC certification.
  • Raw multi-core rendering performance in some benchmarks still lags behind top-tier competitors like AMD's Ryzen 9 HX 370.
  • Thermal throttling can still occur under extreme sustained synthetic loads in thinner laptop designs.
  • Incremental performance gains over previous generations in specific single-core tasks compared to Apple's M-series chips.
  • Currently lacks native Linux driver stability for some hardware components like trackpads and speakers.

Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is a high-end mobile processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, featuring 16 cores (6 Lion Cove Performance, 8 Skymont Efficiency, and 2 Low Power) with a maximum turbo clock speed of 5.4 GHz and 24 MB of L3 cache. Built on a 3nm process, it integrates the powerful Intel Arc 140T GPU with 8 Xe cores reaching 2.35 GHz and a dedicated AI Boost NPU delivering 13 TOPS of INT8 performance. Main pros include its exceptional multi-threaded performance, significant generational gains in integrated graphics over the 185H, and extensive connectivity with support for up to 192 GB of DDR5-6400 memory and PCIe 5.0 lanes. However, potential cons include an NPU that falls below the 40+ TOPS threshold required for Copilot+ PC certification, reported thermal issues with loud fan noise in thin laptop designs, and single-core performance that still trails behind Apple’s M-series chips.

Compare Intel Core Ultra 9 285H with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core Ultra 9 285H and other processors

No results found